greekredemption

This is manifestly and empirically untrue. Many theories reject the use of the scientific method outside of the hard sciences. And you must consider that the scientific method is a philosophical construct in itself. What you've done is given the description of FDR philosophy, or at least one of its central tenets. This doesn't necessarily apply to all philosophers and philosophies. Having apparently read Nietzsche, this at least you should know. I've been downvoted for daring to imply that FDR is not necessarily The One True Approach To Philosophy and that there are other approaches out there with varying degrees of validity.

I suppose you'd have to find a process that consistently behaves in a non-deterministic manner. And then somehow explain that in the context of the universe. It's difficult to think up an experiment that would reject determinism, as experimentation to some extent relies on the same assumption (i.e. that in the same conditions a test repeated ad infinitum will yield the same results). Of course a determinist would merely ask the free will proponent to show the physical mechanism which allows free will itself. This should be enough to convince the determinist, or science in general, that perhaps the assumptions we make about the universe are wrong, or at least inconsistent.

(Emphasis mine)

Could you please define 'god' as it should be understood in the OP?

I've been here, and elsewhere, long enough to form a reasonably well-informed opinion. I qualified my statement by saying that this site is not one for philosophy in general. I'm not sure if you know that philosophy is a very wide field with a great deal of history behind it. It is hardly surprising that many people choose to specialise in certain subsets of 'philosophy' as a whole. Empirically speaking it is a fact that there are many types and sub-types of philosophy. You may think that they are all invalid - fine, they probably think the same of FDR and each other - but I find it baffling that I've attracted so many downvotes for stating such a mundane fact. Perhaps the denizens of FDR would have preferred if my phrasing were along the lines of: "FDR is for real philosophy; everything else is pseudo-philosophical bunk."

It doesn't depart from philosophy. It is part of philosophy where the plural 'philosophies' refers to the parts, even though those parts aren't necessarily discrete. This site focuses on Molyneux's philosophy. There are many sites on the internet dedicated to the discussion of a particular philosophy (part of philosophy, however you want to describe it). That's whether it's anarcho-capitalism as a whole, specific types like here at FDR, quite a few on objectivism, Marxism, the mad thoughts of Slavoj Zizek, the British empiricists, etc, etc. I am curious as to why such a mundane statement - that there are sites on the internet dedicated to particular subjects - automatically brought you to the conclusion that I was saying this place in particular is "cult"-like. And maybe UPB is a rigorous approach to ethics. But it is by no means the only one even on its own terms... borrowing as it does from Kant, Rand, Locke, and more. I should state that there is nothing wrong with this, but the particular focus on UPB still suggests to me that this site is for discussion of Molyneux's philosophy. As I said earlier in this post, that's just fine and dandy. Every part of philosophy has its adherents and its websites. edit: I have to reiterate that nothing I've said is particularly controversial. If you go to a Marxism forum and become frustrated that there isn't general discussion of all different types of philosophy going on, it's a bit strange to lash out when quite obviously it is a forum for the discussion of Marx's ideas. Hence why I suggested the OP needs to find some other place for general discussion.

Why do you keep twisting my words? Nothing I've said even remotely implies that. This site is from the outset quite obviously for FDR philosophy. I mean, look at the forum's guidelines:

I'm saying this site focuses on the philosophy of FDR. Molyneuxian philosophy, perhaps? I don't know. But it isn't a site for the general discussion of philosophy or philosophies. In the same way a Marxist forum is likely to spend most of its time discussing the ideas of Marx, Engels, et al, rather than philosophy in general. None of this intends to make a value judgement about anything, it's just an honest description. If the OP wants a discussion on philosophy in general, this is not the site for him.

Did I say those things?

Because I am interested in the philosophy of FDR.

This is a site for the philosophy of FDR, not philosophy.

I don't know, can I give a valid definition? You'd have to describe your terms, first. But the OP being downvoted 3 times and the general tone - read: unfriendly and in opposition - do seem to suggest hostility. I suppose that's what he gets for not toeing the party line.

What I'm trying to accomplish (apparently unsuccessfully) is to show that at any point in time, there is only one possible future, whether you're a rock or a human - for everything in the universe there is only one future state. Actually, I don't think it matters at all whether or not a thing "think or act". You and I are, from the universe's point of view, no different from rocks; we are essentially just matter and energy, like the rock. And like the rock, we are subject to the same rules of cause and effect and in the same way. Consciousness absolutely cannot generate its own effects! How is that possible? Your brain had some inputs and then came some outputs. Cause and effect. What went in directly affected what came out. It doesn't matter how emergent the phenomena was, a series of past inputs determined the output. It is physically impossible for your brain to "generate its own effects". Or, at least, if it does it would break some of the most fundamental rules of the universe. So yeah I'm not really talking about 'people', per se. I'm just talking about a consistent view of the universe where humans are neither special nor exempt. No there is no single cause, there are many, many causes. Many inputs. And only one future state. And yes I suppose I am invalidating consciousness, intelligence, reason and choice (as are commonly understood and without caveats) in arguing that essentially human beings are no different from any other bundle of matter in the universe. But so what? The truth is the truth, and furthermore we know that our senses - or feelings, in this case - are not the most accurate ways to perceive or measure the universe. It took us thousands of years to figure out that the sparkly things in the sky are not merely just out of reach, but are many, many light years away. We all operate day-to-day on the basis that the Earth is flat, which of course it isn't, but it certainly appears to be from where we're standing. We also all operate day-to-day on the basis that each of us can have a profound effect on the motions of the universe, in spite of the fact that this runs against everything else we know about the universe.

A predictably hostile response to labmath2, but I think he does raise a good practical point in the OP. "This is not to say the theory is invalid, but until it becomes practice and we see it working, it remains purely theory. Nature has given us rules to play by and anyone that seeks to persuade us to play by different rules has the burden of proof, not merely by arguments, but also by practice." It is difficult to persuade large swathes of the population to your PoV if you have no practical working example of the thing you advocate. This explains to an extent why anarcho-capitalism - actually, most anarcho-[philosophy] movements - is a fringe movement; beyond the ivory tower, how can we demonstrate that anarcho-capitalism works better than any other ideology we have right now? I know there is a school of thought that says, "well, just look at how you interact with your neighbour." This does not really seem to be enough for your average joe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster in case you were interested

In its crudest form, yes. That is not the most common expression of utilitarianism, though, to be fair. For instance, some utilitarians emphasise average utility among a population, and others derive an almost rights-based argument (a la Mill).I do concede that is how most libertarians characterise utilitarianism. Nozick and his utility monster for example.

Well that was... unhelpful. Bye, thread!

This subject, along with any discussion on moral nihilism, provokes such furious reactions on this forum. I mean in your case it IS mostly an arrogant sarcasm, but honestly I am keen to know why so much anger for two of philosophy's most basic concerns.

Hey now you're the one saying determinism, I've not said it once. Except for just then. But don't let me get in the way of your anger!

Ah, fair enough. Magic it is, then.

You're considering this way too proximately. What I was trying to demonstrate was that effects are determined entirely by their causes and nothing else. There is nothing in 'you' which can circumvent that. What you see as your actions, your choices, are simply the effects of a variety of different causes, in the same way that the manner in which the double pendulum swings is determined by a variety of causes directly and wholly leading to the effect. Ultimately, all of the synapses firing in your brain are part of that same chain. The upshot of this is that at any given state in space and time, there is only one possible future state, and so on. What you see as a series of choices are in fact nothing of the sort. This is why determinists will often describe free will as 'magic', in that for it to be true it must necessarily violate physical laws, i.e. be supernatural. Because it would violate it. That's a real contradiction, right there. edit: obviously all experience is a complex system, and the experience of choice is in some manner existent within that.

Ftfy

How can 'reason and imagination' generate inputs without antecedent causes? How is that possible? That is basically my argument. We are merely very complex computers, and given the right inputs one of the outputs may well be to utter, "I don't have free will." It matters not that you can conceive of other courses of action; given identical inputs, that series of events would not have happened any other way, including the thought process you had when 'choosing' the action. Consider a lab experiment where all inputs are identical and the test is repeated identically; the output of the test will be identical every time unless the inputs change. Given identical inputs even a double pendulum will demonstrate identical outputs. So unless your brain is gathering inputs from outside of the causal chain, or somehow generating its own, there is no way any action you take can possibly be chosen. We must be subject to the same rules as everything else!

To its proponents, utilitarianism is a moral argument. It's not a lot of substance, but there is some at least...

Well even utilitarians consider the appeal to utility to be in itself a moral argument.